Personal protective equipment-induced systemic hypercapnic hypoxaemia: translational implications for impaired cognitive-clinical functional performance.

BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) adversely affects pulmonary gas exchange and may result in systemic hypercapnic hypoxaemia and headache. This study aimed to determine what extent PPE affects cerebral symptoms, global cerebral blood flow, and cognitive functional performance. METHODS: Higher surgical trainees participated in a randomized, repeated-measures, crossover study, completing 60 min of laparoscopic surgical simulation in both standard operating attire and type 3 PPE. Measurements were collected at baseline and after 60 min of simulation. The primary outcome measure was headache. Headache was examined using the validated visual analogue scale (VAS) and Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire C (ESQ-C), global cerebral blood flow with duplex ultrasonography, and visuospatial and executive gross/fine motor function with grooved peg board (GPB) and laparoscopic bead (LSB) board tasks. RESULTS: Thirty-one higher surgical trainees (20 men, 11 women) completed the study. Compared with standard operating attire, PPE increased headache assessment scores (mean(s.d.) VAS score 3.5(5.6) versus 13.0(3.7), P < 0.001; ESQ-C score 1.3(2.0) versus 5.9(5.1), P < 0.001) and was associated with poorer completion times for GPB-D (61.4(12.0) versus 71.1(12.4) s; P = 0.034) and LSB (192.5(66.9) versus 270.7(135.3) s; P = 0.025) tasks. Wearing PPE increased heart rate (82.5(13.6) versus 93.5(13.0) beats/min; P = 0.022) and skin temperature (36.6(0.4) versus 37.1(0.5)°C; P < 0.001), but decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (97.9(0.8) versus 96.8(1.0) per cent; P < 0.001). Female higher surgical trainees exhibited higher peripheral oxygen saturation across all conditions. No differences were observed in global cerebral blood flow as a function of attire, time or sex. CONCLUSION: Despite no marked changes in global cerebral blood flow, type 3 PPE was associated with increased headache scores and cerebral symptoms (VAS and ESQ-C) alongside impaired executive motor function highlighting the clinical implications of PPE-induced impairment for cognitive-clinical performance.

Differential attainment in higher surgical training: scoping pan-specialty spectra.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate differential attainment during higher surgical training (HST; all specialties) related to three ethnic cohorts: White UK (WUKG), Black and Minority Ethnic UK Graduates (BMEUKG), and International Medical Graduates (IMG). METHOD: Anonymised records of 266 HSTs (126 WUKG, 65 BMEUKG, 75 IMG; 7 years) in a single UK Statutory Education Body were examined. Primary effect measures were Annual Record of Competency Progression Outcome (ARCPO) and Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS) pass. RESULTS: ARCPOs related to ethnicity and specialty were similar with the exception of general surgery (GS) trainees, four of whom received ARCPO 4 (GS 4.9% (75% BME; p=0.025) vs all other 0%). ARCPO 3 was commoner in women (22/76, (28.9%) than men 27/190 (14.2%), OR 2.46, p=0.006). FRCS pass rates (WUKG vs BMEUKG vs IMG) were 76.9%, 52.9% and 53.9% respectively (p=0.064) but unrelated to gender (M 70.4% vs F 64.3%). On multivariable analyses: ARCPO 3 was associated with Female gender and Maternity Leave (OR 8.05, p=0.001); FRCS pass with ethnicity (OR 0.21, p=0.028) and Hirsch Indices of ≥5 (OR 11.17, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Differential attainment was plain with BMEUKG FRCS performance almost a third poorer than WUKG, and women twofold more likely to receive adverse ARCPOs, with return from statutory leave independently associated with training extension. Focused counter measures targeted at non-operative technical skills (including academic reach), Keeping in Touch, Return to Work, and re-induction programmed support are urgently needed for trainees at risk.

Melatonin for pre-medication in children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Melatonin's effectiveness as an anxiolytic medication has been confirmed in adults; however, its efficacy in a paediatric population is unclear. A number of small studies have assessed its use in children as a pre-operative anxiolytic, with conflicting results. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of pre-operative melatonin use in children. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science), and ' ClinicalTrials.gov ' were searched for ongoing and completed clinical trials of relevance. Citation tracking reference lists and relevant articles were also accessed. The review was unrestricted by comparator or outcomes. Eleven studies were judged eligible for inclusion. There were high levels of heterogeneity in melatonin administration (in terms of dose and timing). Variable outcomes were reported and included: anxiety; anaesthetic success; analgesia; sedation; post-operative recovery; and safety. Outcomes were not always assessed with the same measures. RESULTS: Evidence to support melatonin's anxiolytic properties in this setting is conflicting. Melatonin was associated with reduced sedative effects, post-operative excitement and improved emergence behaviour, compared to comparator drugs. One study reported the benefit of melatonin use on sleep disturbance at two weeks post-surgery. No adverse safety events were identified to be significantly associated with melatonin, affirming its excellent safety profile. CONCLUSION: Despite potential advantages, including improved emergence behaviour, based on current evidence we cannot confirm whether melatonin is non-inferior to current "usual care" pre-medications. Further consideration of melatonin as an anxiolytic pre-medication in paediatric surgery is needed.

Gongs galore: phaleristic study of the relative risk of a healing art related New Year Honour.

OBJECTIVES: To compare proportional representation of healthcare specialty workers, in receipt of New Year Honours (NYHs) and examine system bias. DESIGN: Observational study of UK honours system including comparative analysis of proportional representation of the UK medical workforce. PARTICIPANTS: Recipients of NYHs from 2010 to 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absolute risk of receiving an NYH, related to medical specialty, gender and geographical region. Relative risk (RR) of receiving an NYH for services to healthcare related to specialty. RESULTS: 11 207 NYHs were bestowed, with 368 (3.3%) awarded to healthcare professionals: 212 (57.6%) women, 156 (42.4%) men. The RR of a healthcare professional receiving an NYH was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.84, p<0.001) when compared with the remaining UK workforce. Doctors received most NYHs (n=181), with public health, clinical oncology and general medicine specialties most likely to be rewarded (RR 20.35 (95% CI 9.61 to 43.08, p<0.001), 8.43 (95% CI 2.70 to 26.30, p<0.001) and 8.22 (95% CI 6.22 to 10.86, p<0.001)), respectively; anaesthetists received fewest NYHs (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.13 to 2.10), p=0.305). Men were more likely to receive NYHs than women (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.54; p<0.001). Two hundred and fifty-four NYHs (69.0%) were bestowed on residents of England (60, 16.3% London), 49 (13.3%) Scotland (p=0.003), 39 (10.6%) Wales (p<0.001) and 26 (7.1%) Northern-Ireland (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative risk of receiving an NYH varied over 150-fold by specialty, twofold by gender and threefold by geographical location. Public health physicians are perceived to be the pick of the parade.

Surgical curriculum concordance: requiem for the educational dream.

This study aimed to analyse the degree of relative variation in speciality-specific competencies required for Certification of Completion of Training (CCT) set by the UK Joint Committee for Surgical Training (JCST) 2021 curriculum. Regulatory body guidance related to operative and non-operative surgical skill competencies required for CCT were analysed and compared. Wide inter-speciality variation was demonstrated in the minimum number of logbook cases (median 815; range 54 to 2100), indexed operations (8; 5 to 24) and procedure-based assessments (35; 6 to 110). Academic competencies related to peer-reviewed publications, communications to learned societies and audits were aligned at zero, zero and three across specialities, respectively. Mandatory courses have been standardised with Advanced Trauma Life Support being the sole pre-requisite CCT for all. JCST certification guidelines have broadly standardised competency domains, yet large discrepancies persist regarding operative indicative numbers and assessments. This article serves as a definitive CCT guide regarding prevailing changes.

Prognostic significance of drivers at work and learning styles in surgical training.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Drivers at work (DW) and Learning Styles (LS) refer to contentious theories that aim to account for differential career development yet seldom feature in assessment. This study aimed to quantify the influence of core surgical trainees' (CST) DW and LS on career progress. STUDY DESIGN: DW questionnaires and Kolb LS inventories were distributed to 168 CSTs during five consecutive induction boot camps in a single-statutory education body. Primary outcome measures were membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination and national training number (NTN) success. RESULTS: Of 108 responses received (response rate 64.3%), 64.8% were male and 35.2% female (p=0.003). DW spectrum was: please people (25.0%), be perfect (21.3%), hurry up (18.5%), be strong (13.9%) and try hard (0%, p<0.001). DW was either equivocal (n=14) or not provided (n=9) by 21.3% of CSTs. LS were: converging (34.3%), accommodating (28.7%), diverging (23.1%) and assimilating (13.9%, p=0.021). Men were more likely to be convergers (29/70, 41.4%), and women divergers (15/38, 39.5%, p=0.018) also preferring team-based LS (accommodating/diverging, 26/38 (68.4%) vs 30/70 (42.9%), p=0.010). MRCS success was not associated with DW (p=0.329) or LS (p=0.459). On multivariable analysis, NTN success was associated with LS (accommodators 64.5%, divergers 32.0%, OR 10.90, p=0.014), scholarly activity (OR 1.71, p=0.001), improving surgical training programme (OR 36.22, p=0.019) and universal ARCP 1 outcome (OR 183.77, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LS are associated with important differences in career progress with accommodator twofold more likely than diverger to achieve NTN.

Prognostic significance of competition ratios in surgical specialty training selection.

BACKGROUND: A competition ratio (CR) indicates the ratio of total applications for a training post when compared with numbers of specialty posts available. This study aimed to evaluate CRs' influence on National Training Number (NTN) selection in a single UK Statutory Education Body. METHODS: Consecutive core surgical trainees numbering 154 (105 men, 49 women; median years since graduation: four) were studied over a 6-year period. Annual specialty specific CRs were obtained from Health Education England's website, and primary outcome measure was UK NTN appointment. RESULTS: Overall NTN appointment was 45.5%. Median CR was 2.36; range Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery 0.70 (2020) to Neurosurgery 22.0 (2020). Multivariable analysis revealed that NTN success was associated with: CR (OR 0.46, p=0.003), a single scientific publication (OR 6.25, p=0.001), cohort year (2019, OR 12.65, p=0.003) and Universal Annual Review of Competence Progression Outcome 1 (OR 45.24, p<0.001). CRs predicted NTN appointment with a Youden index defined critical ratio of 4.42; 28.6% (n=8) versus 49.2% (n=62), p=0.018. CONCLUSION: CRs displayed 30-fold variation, with CRs below 4.42 associated with twofold better NTN promotion, but strong clinical competence and academic reach again emerged as the principal drivers of career advancement.

Autologous stem cell transplantation in refractory Crohn's disease - low intensity therapy evaluation (ASTIClite): study protocols for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial and observational follow up study.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal inflammation in Crohn's disease (CD) is caused by mucosal immune system reactivity to luminal antigen and results in debilitating symptoms, reduced quality of life, impaired work productivity and significant health care costs. Not all patients respond to conventional and biologic therapies, with chronic inflammation ensuing. Although surgical resection may be required, disease frequently returns and surgery may not be an option, or may be declined. Case reports suggest potential benefit after haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with refractory CD. The ASTIC trial asked whether HSCT could cure CD. Few patients achieved the primary endpoint of clinical remission for 3 months, off all medication with no evidence of active disease, and there were a high number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), including one patient death. However, beneficial effects were observed in some aspects of disease activity. The ASTIClite trial will investigate these potential benefits and safety using a lower intensity regimen than ASTIC. METHODS: Ninety-nine participants will be recruited from secondary care IBD centres in the UK into a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT, ASTIClite) and an observational follow-up, and randomised to autologous HSCT versus standard care (ratio 2:1). The primary endpoint is treatment success at week 48, defined as mucosal healing without surgery or death. Secondary endpoints relating to efficacy, safety and mechanistic analyses will be evaluated at week 8, 14, 24, 32, 40 and 48. Long-term safety of the low intensity HSCT regimen forms the primary endpoint for the EBMT follow-up study and will be assessed annually for 4-7 years. DISCUSSION: ASTIClite will compare HSCTlite with standard care with respect to safety, efficacy and quality of life, and capture outcomes allowing findings to be generalised to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant mechanistic insights into the immunological consequences of HSCTlite and its impact on treatment outcomes. The observational follow-up will provide information, which is currently unavailable for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ASTIClite RCT was registered on 31st October 2017 ( ISRCTN17160440 ) and the EBMT follow-up study on 19th January 2018 ( ISRCTN31981313 ).

A systematic review of outcomes reported in small bowel obstruction research.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a condition which is commonly treated by general surgeons. The evidence base for treatment of this condition is limited in part by variable reporting of outcomes in the literature. The aim of this study was to identify commonly used outcomes in research on SBO. METHODS: This review was reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017065538). Searches were performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify prospective cohort or randomized trials reporting outcomes of interventions in SBO. Studies addressing diagnostics, pediatric populations, and SBO due to malignancy were excluded. Studies were screened for inclusion. Study and outcome characteristics were extracted into a -predesigned pro forma and mapped onto the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) framework. RESULTS: A total of 1222 studies were screened for eligibility, 74 full text articles retrieved, and 51 studies included for synthesis. A total of 50 different outcomes were used. Duration of hospital stay was the most frequently reported outcome (n = 21 studies). Resolution of SBO was reported in 12 studies but only defined in eight studies which used six different definitions. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in only four studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of variation in the outcomes reported in SBO research. There is a clear need for a core outcome set. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for this condition should also be explored.

Using behavioral science to increase core outcome set use in trials.

OBJECTIVES: Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed sets of outcomes for use in clinical trials, which can increase standardization and reduce heterogeneity of outcomes in research. Using a COS, or not, is a behavior that can potentially be increased using behavioral strategies. The aim of this study was to identify behavioral intervention components to potentially increase use of COS in trials. METHODS: This project was informed by the Behavior Change Wheel framework. Two reviewers extracted barriers and facilitators to COS use from four recently published studies examining COS use in trials. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model, which forms part of the Behavior Change Wheel. COM-B findings were mapped to intervention functions by two reviewers, and then mapped to behavior change techniques (BCTs). Full-team Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/Cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side effects/Safety, Equity ratings were used to reach consensus on intervention functions and BCTs. BCTs were operationalized using examples of tangible potential applications and were categorized based on similarity. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified for all capability, opportunity and motivation aspects of the COM-B model. Five intervention functions (education, training, enablement, persuasion, and modeling) and 15 BCTs were identified. Thirty-six BCT examples were developed, including providing information on benefits of COS for health research, and information choosing COS. BCT examples are categorized by approaches related to "workshops," "guidance," "audio/visual resources," and "other resources." CONCLUSION: Study findings represent diverse ways to potentially increase COS use in trials. Future work is needed to examine effects of these behavioral intervention components on COS use. If effective, increased use of COS can improve outcome reporting and minimize outcome heterogeneity and research waste.

Determining external randomised pilot trial feasibility in preparation for a definitive trial: a web-based survey of corresponding authors of external pilot trial publications.

BACKGROUND: External randomised pilot trials aim to determine whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) should be conducted, and if so, how. However, not every pilot trial that suggests that a definitive trial will be feasible will progress to a definitive study. In this study, we surveyed corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications to assess pilot trial outcomes in terms of feasibility and progression. METHODS: Web-based surveys were sent to corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications, open for four weeks between January and February 2022. Four surveys were produced depending on whether the corresponding author had published a trial protocol or results publication, and whether progression criteria were reported. Surveys asked whether a future RCT was considered feasible, whether progression criteria were met (if applicable), what other factors informed the assessment of pilot trial feasibility, and whether the pilot trial has progressed to further research. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. RESULTS: 98 of 276 corresponding authors completed the survey (average response rate of 36% across all surveys). Of these, 89 respondents indicated that their trial had completed. Ninety per cent of respondents who were corresponding authors of completed pilot trials stated that their pilot trial was either feasible (42/89, 47%) or feasible with changes to the trial design (38/89, 43%), yet only 66% (59/89) reported the intention to conduct a future definitive trial. Availability of funding for a future definitive trial and changing priorities of the Chief Investigator were the most common barriers to progression identified. Qualitative research findings was the most frequent factor considered both by corresponding authors who reported and who did not report progression criteria when determining trial feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: Just under one quarter (21/89, 24%) of respondents who considered their external randomised pilot trial to be feasible, or feasible with changes, did not intend to conduct a definitive trial highlighting research inefficiency and waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/d28hr [20 December 2021].

Recommendations for progression criteria during external randomised pilot trial design, conduct, analysis and reporting.

BACKGROUND: External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is feasible. Prespecified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive RCT should be conducted. This commentary presents a set of proposed recommendations for progression criteria to guide researchers when (i) designing, (ii) conducting, (iii) analysing and (iv) reporting external randomised pilot trials. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a mixed methods approach. This involved (i) a methodological review of pilot trial publications, (ii) a cross-sectional study of pilot trial research funding applications, (iii) qualitative interviews with pilot trial researchers and (iv) a survey of corresponding authors of identified pilot trial publications. Initial recommendations were refined following two consultation stakeholder workshops held in July 2022. Recommendations for progression criteria for external randomised pilot trials: i. DESIGN: consider progression criteria from the earliest opportunity; map progression criteria to feasibility objectives; consider quantitative and qualitative interpretations of feasibility; provide justification; develop guidelines rather than rules; seek input from relevant stakeholders. ii. Conduct: regularly monitor pilot trial data against progression criteria. iii. ANALYSIS: avoid considering each progression criterion in isolation; engage in discussion with relevant stakeholders; consider context and other factors external to the pilot trial; consider feasibility (can we?) and progression (will we?). iv. Reporting: we propose a reporting checklist in relation to progression criteria and recommend reporting in a table format for clarity. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide a helpful resource for researchers to consider progression criteria at different stages of external randomised pilot trials. We have produced a simple infographic tool to summarise these recommendations for researchers to refer to. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these proposed recommendations should inform future development, or update, of established guidelines for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of external randomised pilot trials.

Pilot and feasibility studies: extending the conceptual framework.

In 2016, we published a conceptual framework outlining the conclusions of our work in defining pilot and feasibility studies. Since then, the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials has been published and there have been further developments in the pilot study landscape. In this paper, we revisit and extend our framework to incorporate the various feasibility pathways open to researchers, which include internal pilot studies. We consider, with examples, when different approaches to feasibility and pilot studies are more effective and efficient, taking into account the pragmatic decisions that may need to be made. The ethical issues involved in pilot studies are discussed. We end with a consideration of the funders' perspective in making difficult resource decisions to include feasibility work and the policy implications of these; throughout, we provide examples of the uncertainties and compromises that researchers have to navigate to make progress in the most efficient way.

A retrospective cohort study of differential attainment, COVID and chaos: taking the difference out of a terrible trinity.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate core surgical training (CST) differential attainment related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), gender and ethnicity. The hypothesis was that COVID-19 adversely influenced CST outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 271 anonymised CST records was undertaken at a UK Statutory Education Body. Primary effect measures were Annual Review of Competency Progression Outcome (ARCPO), Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination pass and Higher Surgical Training National Training Number (NTN) appointment. Data were collected prospectively at ARCP and analysed with non-parametric statistical methods in SPSS. RESULTS: CSTs numbering 138 completed training pre-COVID and 133 peri-COVID. ARCPO 1, 2 and 6 were 71.9% pre-COVID versus 74.4% peri-COVID ( P =0.844). MRCS pass rates were 69.6% pre-COVID versus 71.1% peri-COVID ( P =0.968), but NTN appointment rates diminished (pre-COVID 47.4% vs. peri-COVID 36.9%, P =0.324); none of the above varied by gender or ethnicity. Multivariable analyses by three models revealed: ARCPO was associated with gender [m:f 1:0.87, odds ratio (OR) 0.53, P =0.043] and CST theme (Plastics vs. General OR 16.82, P =0.007); MRCS pass with theme (Plastics vs. General OR 8.97, P =0.004); NTN with the Improving Surgical Training run-through programme (OR 5.00, P <0.001). Programme retention improved peri-COVID (OR 0.20, P =0.014) with pan University Hospital rotations performing better than Mixed or District General-only rotations (OR 6.63, P =0.018). CONCLUSION: Differential attainment profiles varied 17-fold, yet COVID-19 did not influence ARCPO or MRCS pass rates. NTN appointment fell by one-fifth peri-COVID, but overall training outcome metrics remained robust despite the existential threat.

Enhanced Stress Resilience Training for UK Surgical Trainees; Effect and Evolution Evaluated.

INTRODUCTION: Core Surgical Training (CST) programs are associated with high burnout. This study aimed to assess the influence of Enhanced Stress Resilience Training (ESRT) over a 2-year period in a single UK Statutory Education Body. METHOD: CSTs participated in 5-weeks of formal ESRT to address work stressors. The primary outcome measure was career progression related to curriculum metrics and National Training Number (NTN) appointment. Secondary measures related to burnout using validated psychological inventories. RESULTS: Of 42 CSTs, 13 engaged fully with ESRT (31.0%; male 8, female 5, median age 28 year.), 11 engaged partially, and 18 did not. ESRT engagement was associated with better NTN appointment (ESRT 8/13 (61.5%) vs. not 1/18 (5.6%), p = 0.025), less burnout [aMBI; mean 5.14 (SD ± 2.35) vs. 3.14 (±2.25), F 6.637, p = 0.002, ηp2=0.167], less stress [PSS-10; 19.22 (±5.91) vs. 15.79 (±5.47), F 8.740, p < 0.001, ηp2=0.200], but more mindfulness [CAMS-R; 19.22 (±5.91) vs. 20.57 (±2.93), F 3.201, p = 0.047, ηp2=0.084]. On multivariable analysis, Improving Surgical Training (run-through CST) program (OR 5.2 (95% CI 1.42-28.41, p = 0.022), MRCS pass (OR 17.128 (95% CI 1.48-197.11, p = 0.023) and ESRT engagement (OR 13.249, 95% CI 2.08-84.58, p = 0.006) were independently associated with NTN success. DISCUSSION: ESRT was associated with less stress and burnout, better mindfulness, and most importantly 13-fold better career progression.

The most influential COVID-19 articles: A systematic review.

Background: Since December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has triggered a pandemic with challenges for health care systems around the world. Researchers have studied and published on the subject of SARS-CoV-2 and the disease extensively. What is the significance of articles published, shared and cited in the early stages of such a pandemic? Materials and methods: A systematic literature search in a time frame of 12 months and analysis rating using Principle Component Analysis (PCA) and Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA) were performed. Results: The 100 most cited COVID-19 articles were identified. The majority of these articles were from China (n = 54), followed by United States of America (USA) (n = 21) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 8). All articles were published in high-ranked, peer-reviewed journals, with research focusing onthe the diagnosis, transmission and therapy of COVID-19. The level of evidence of the 100 most cited COVID-19 articles on average was low. Conclusion: In the early stages of a pandemic, new and innovative research can emerge and be highly cited, regardless of the level of evidence.